Gov’t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

Yeah two hairy dudes poking each other in the rear and pretending to be married has been going on in society for centuries. AHAHAHAHAHA

So, what basic rules of society are gays allowed to break that others are not?

Forcing people to cater to their whims and wishes comes to mind, either you do as the gays say or the Government will fine you or arrest you.

Ignorant nonsense.

The ordinance was clearly content-neutral, regulatory only, in no way seeking to preempt or restrict speech, and perfectly Constitutional.

 

[Truth2Know]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

Try some critical thinking, if it doesn't strain you too much.

 

[JFK_USA]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

Try some critical thinking, if it doesn't strain you too much.

Where is your evidence suggesting it was due to its content? Your assumptions about what you think happened isn't going to hold up in court.

 

[Agit8r]

I think this is a great example of the right-wing political correctness movement. "Ooh, we need an exemption from the basic rules of society, because of our beliefs."

Sounds like left loons and homos on SSM

Actually, they are trying to join the basic institutions of society, and without doing any harm to them at that

Yeah two hairy dudes poking each other in the rear and pretending to be married has been going on in society for centuries. AHAHAHAHAHA

So, what basic rules of society are gays allowed to break that others are not?

Forcing people to cater to their whims and wishes comes to mind, either you do as the gays say or the Government will fine you or arrest you.

Don't like the law, change the law. Y'all control congress, right?

 

[SwimExpert]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

Try some critical thinking, if it doesn't strain you too much.

So no, you don't have any evidence. But you have an assumption. Here's some critical thinking for you:

Consider alternative explanations.
Considering alternative explanations is one of the vital skills in critical thinking. When an event is attributed to a certain cause, simply accepting the attributed cause tends to be a flaw in reasoning. Anyone can attribute an event to nearly any cause they wish, and often times bias will manifest itself through false attribution of causality. By considering alternative explanations, an observer can minimize the chances of being duped by a misguided claimant, or a malicious propagandist with an agenda.

So, have you considered alternative explanations?

 

[Truth2Know]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

Try some critical thinking, if it doesn't strain you too much.

So no, you don't have any evidence. But you have an assumption. Here's some critical thinking for you:

Consider alternative explanations.
Considering alternative explanations is one of the vital skills in critical thinking. When an event is attributed to a certain cause, simply accepting the attributed cause tends to be a flaw in reasoning. Anyone can attribute an event to nearly any cause they wish, and often times bias will manifest itself through false attribution of causality. By considering alternative explanations, an observer can minimize the chances of being duped by a misguided claimant, or a malicious propagandist with an agenda.

So, have you considered alternative explanations?

You’re right, I just listed the two most probable alternatives in my post: naivety and dishonesty. For completeness, I should have also included mental illness and low intelligence.

I stand corrected.

 

[SwimExpert]

Anyone who believes the structure and material of the sign prompted the complaint rather than the message is naïve or dishonest beyond hope.

Do you have any evidence to support the premise that the sign was ordered removed due to its content?

Try some critical thinking, if it doesn't strain you too much.

So no, you don't have any evidence. But you have an assumption. Here's some critical thinking for you:

Consider alternative explanations.
Considering alternative explanations is one of the vital skills in critical thinking. When an event is attributed to a certain cause, simply accepting the attributed cause tends to be a flaw in reasoning. Anyone can attribute an event to nearly any cause they wish, and often times bias will manifest itself through false attribution of causality. By considering alternative explanations, an observer can minimize the chances of being duped by a misguided claimant, or a malicious propagandist with an agenda.

So, have you considered alternative explanations?

You’re right, I just listed the two most probable alternatives in my post: naivety and dishonesty. For completeness, I should have also included mental illness and low intelligence.

I stand corrected.

Straight from assumptions to insults. Okay, nothing to see here folks. Just a local idiot.

 

[Truth2Know]

So, have you considered alternative explanations?[/QUOTE]

You’re right, I just listed the two most probable alternatives in my post: naivety and dishonesty. For completeness, I should have also included mental illness and low intelligence.

I stand corrected.[/QUOTE]



Straight from assumptions to insults. Okay, nothing to see here folks. Just a local idiot.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for insulting you. It was intentional and, judging from other posts on this board, pretty tame. However, it does not justify what I wrote.

The inexcusable insult, though, is against God and the children destroyed in their mother’s wombs. A person (or people) who wanted to justify killing these preborn children was outraged at the pro-life signs. A way was sought through man’s laws, regarding “banners, pennants, and flags” no less, to find something, anything, to shut down what testified to their Godlessness.

“On April 20, 2015, the church received a letter from the City’s zoning inspector advising the church that a complaint had been received about the signs and that the church was in violation of a section of the City’s sign ordinance which prohibits banners, pennants and flags.”

The complaint originated with a citizen, not the zoning inspector. Read the rest of the OP’s link, and links within that link, to see why these banners were deemed not to be in violation of the law.

Using schema about people on both sides of the pro-life, pro-murder issue, it’s easy to conclude the message on the banners was the issue, not the fact that banners were displayed. Why else would a private citizen comb through the regulations to find such an obscure law? But some demand “Proof!”; something that will “Hold up in court!” to justify the assertion that the pro-life message was the issue.

Even if the citizen who brought the complaint admitted, “Yeah, I just hate being told killing babies is wrong.”, many still wouldn’t accept this as the reason. It’s not because of naivety, dishonesty, mental illness, or low intelligence. It’s blindness of the mind, per 2Cor 4: 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

May God free people’s minds from the god of this age.

 

[Truth2Know]

SCOTUS sides with the truth: Supreme Court to Government No Good Intentions Don t Give You a License to Censor Speech Evan Bernick